Says deciding the maintainability of a constitutional petition requires interpretation of the Constitution
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a clerk of court has no authority to determine the maintainability of constitutional petitions or appeals, stating that such issues can only be decided by the court through a judicial determination.
In a detailed 16-page order written by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, the court partially allowed an appeal filed by Razia Aslam against the secretary’s decision to return her constitutional petition under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution.
The ruling clarifies the scope of the registrar’s powers and draws a clear distinction between administrative functions and judicial authority. The case arose after the registrar, by order and remand notice dated February 14, 2026, refused to consider Razia Aslam’s constitutional petition.
The registrar had raised five objections, stating that the petition did not identify any issue of public importance involving the application of fundamental rights, sought redress of an individual grievance through the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the court, did not satisfy the requirements of Article 175E(3), contained an incorrectly drafted notice to the respondents and had been filed without first resorting to legal recourse.
Justice Rizvi held that the registrar exceeded the powers conferred by the Federal Constitutional Court Rules, 2025 in ruling that the petition was not maintainable.
The court noted that the clerk functions as the executive head of the court office and exercises administrative, ministerial and certain procedural powers relating to the filing and handling of cases. These powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements such as formal control, limitation and other codified defects.
However, the judgment held that deciding whether a constitutional petition is maintainable requires interpretation of constitutional provisions and application of judicial mindset, making it a purely judicial function that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Rizvi observed that allowing the Registrar to determine maintainability would effectively confer judicial powers on an administrative officer, something which is neither contemplated by the Rules nor consistent with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The judgment noted that while the registrar has authority under the rules to demand amendments to pleadings, refuse to receive documents filed contrary to procedural requirements and reject petitions that are not filed in accordance with the Rules or contain scandalous material, these powers do not extend to resolving substantive legal issues.
The court also clarified the meaning of “scandalous” under the rules, holding that the expression refers only to defects of form and presentation and cannot be construed to allow the Registrar to reject petitions on the basis of their legal merits or their alleged frivolity.
Justice Rizvi further observed that frivolous or vexatious petitions can be discouraged by the court itself by imposing costs as per applicable rules.
